Commonwealth v. Todaro
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
CASTILLE, Justice.
The issue on appeal is whether appellant is entitled to relief under the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”) 1 on his claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the trial court’s submission of written instructions to the jury during jury deliberations. Because we find that the law at the time of trial did not prohibit the trial court from submitting written instructions to the jury, and since trial counsel’s effectiveness must be judged on the law as it existed at the time of trial, we affirm the order of the Superior Court…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Allen v. HardySupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Commonwealth v. TravagliaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
- Commonwealth v. MillerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
- Commonwealth v. EdmistonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1993
- Blackwell v. Com. State Ethics Com'nSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by39 opinions
- Commonwealth v. SpotzSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
- Commonwealth v. ColavitaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2010
- Commonwealth v. FultonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
- Commonwealth v. BraceySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
- Commonwealth v. JonesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.